Obama at the Head of Anti-Second Amendment Movement

Barack Obama has pledged to lead a new national crackdown on firearms, with some prohibitions, greater legal controls and a new approach to personal safety that requires a profound transformation of the dominant culture in the United States. For the first time in decades, the tragedy of Newtown, different from previous ones in several circumstances, is being used to launch a massive attack on the second amendment, which clearly states that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and that the government cannot legislate against that constitutional right in any way, shape or form.

The issue of gun ownership is one that is little understood by most Americans. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, people all over the United States showed up at police departments to hand in their guns and according to recently taken polls, upwards of 50 percent of the population now believes that the idea of limiting gun rights is a positive thing. Perhaps they have been overwhelmed by the fear instigated by the main stream media, which have used the shooting at the Sandy Hook school to call for massive gun restrictions. People cannot see that if there is one thing that should be understood after the shooting is that the government cannot protect them, and that their protection is their responsibility.

Not only have many congressmen shown opposition to firearm ownership, but a large number of them have been quietly working on legislation to limit them, some of the most loyal supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA), such as Sen. Joe Machin, a member of the powerful lobby for years, yesterday joined the supporters of imposing tighter controls. “It is time to move beyond the rhetoric, we need to sit down and do something,” he said.

Indeed, it is a new time. The country lives under a shock like never before. Millions of parents that Monday morning left their children at school have yet to experience the dreadful outcome of the crime perpetrated at the Sandy Hook school last Friday. The shooting did not make them understand that it is their responsibility to protect their own children. Children, teachers and families are always talking about it, how something so horrible could happen, what needs to be done so that does not happen again, but they seem unable to rationalize and come up with the right answer.

Obama picked up the popular sentiment in a speech on Sunday night in Newtown, which promised to use “all power” in his hands to carry out significant change. It is very likely that this is the great cause of his second term and certainly an ambitious one, since at least 80 million people in the United States are gun owners. We can expect two outcomes, if the Obama White House really attempts to enact a massive gun ban: The first would result in the mass enslavement of the population, should the majority of those 80 million decide to hand in their weapons. This is all the government wants. The second, if those 80 million stand their ground and refuse to hand the firearms, but the government imposes some kind of gun confiscation policy the country may be on the way to experience another civil war.

A civil war would not be new. In fact, a minority of Americans fought a war against British imperialism to keep their right to own firearms, after the English crown called for the citizens to hand in their guns. The outcome was the defeat of the British and the Americans kept their right to keep and bear arms. If the U.S. government decides to impose a ban on the possession of firearms and law enforcement decides to comply with such task, we are in the works for one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States.

The Media and the Propaganda

“We can not accept events like this as routine. Are we willing to accept that we are powerless over a slaughter of this nature? What policy does not allow us to act? Are we willing to say that violence attacking our children year after year is just the price we pay for our freedom,” asked Barack Obama. “No law can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent acts of senseless violence in our society. But that can not be an excuse for doing nothing. “

“We have to change,” Obama said. The problem for Obama is that for him to weaken or completely eliminate the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, he will have to fight with half of the country and more precisely with a growing minority that understands now more than ever that owning guns has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting themselves from mentally ill people. Many pro second amendment people are asking what would have happened if the principal of the Sandy Hook school had been a gun owner, or if the teachers had been trained to use guns and had one of their own. Other states and cities around the United States have asked that same question and have voted to give teachers the legal right to own firearms.

Besides the need to defend themselves, pro second amendment Americans will offer firm opposition to Obama, Congress and the main stream corporate media by supporting the concept of freedom as inalienable patrimony of the individual in the U.S., which is subjected to the constant threat of collectivist state authority. This collectivism is reflected in Obama’s last speech when he called for all Americans to support his gun ban project. “If we want to educate and protect our children, we are going to have to do together,” said the president.

Those words are a challenge to the idea that a child’s safety is the responsibility of the family and not the government. Millions of Americans share the principle that the protection of a child is the sole and exclusive obligation of the parents or close relatives. In that same idea of individual responsibility, which has many positive applications, children are educated and raised to become the best in their communities. Children who are homeschooled, and who are taught real family and social values are more successful as members of a community.

Challenging the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as suggested by Obama will obviously hit a very sensitive fiber; one of the most sensitive at the core of American existence. This country was founded on individual freedom, and this explains why the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Those who seek to challenge the second amendment say that limits must be imposed for the safety of the collective, clearly missing the core principles upon which their country was founded. Most of these people are domesticated Americans who actually believe that the government knows better how to protect them, even though the federal government has failed time after time, after time. Fear has taken its toll.

Translating political rhetoric into concrete action will not be easy. Any legislative process to impose greater controls on firearm ownership will be costly all around. The forces opposed to the regulation of weapons — the citizenry — will not go away overnight. Even after controlled opposition such as the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party failed to come out in defense of the second amendment, other organization like Gun Owners of America and the average folk himself will not let the latest tragedy run away with his right to hold on to their guns to protect himself and his family.

In the U.S. Congress, it is expected that most Republican congressmen will bend over and allow the fake liberal, progressive movement, to which the U.S. president belong, to impose some kind of limitation to the second amendment. Plans have already been drawn by people like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to attack the second amendment.

New gun laws will not fix anything. The problem in the United States is not one of a ‘gun culture’ but one of a mentally ill population, that is drugged up to their eyeballs while suffering the worst crisis of identity in the history of the country. The fake multiculturalism, the racial division, the lack of accountability of both government and corporate American and the hatred campaigns secretly being supported by government grants or tax-exempted NGO’s have devastated the core of the of the greatest nations in history.

Prohibiting or greatly limiting gun ownership will not only not solve the problem of violence in the American society. In fact, it will make it worse. If today gun-free zones such as schools, churches, malls and sporting events are sweet targets mentally ill people to pull out a gun and kill anyone they want, imagine what will happen in the United States if the country as a whole becomes a gun-free zone.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.

Post navigation

They wont ban them u idiot. they will create strict laws till no one has them. Or take away privileges if you don’t hand them in. They will do it the exact way the Germany did and the British did.

brandon

That’s essentially banning guns. Just because you don’t publicly say, “Guns are banned, refuse to turn them in and get the death sentence,” and instead make it nearly impossible for someone to buy or own a firearm you accomplish the exact same thing using subversion.

It’s good cop/bad cop.

bowlan

the gun ban is a smoke screen.

they tell the sheep what they want to hear.

gun bans would take over a year to go into effect and does nothing to pull guns that have already been sold.

that would take martial law gun confiscation.

at best they can stop gun dealers from selling new and used guns that are controlled in the future.

Paul

READ THIS FOR SOME COMMON SENSE!

Tennessee Considers Training And Arming Schoolteachers To Protect Against Shootings
By Evan McMorris-Santoro | TPM – hrs ….Tennessee has emerged this week as a center of the “the answer is more guns in schools” sentiment following the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shooting.

A member of the Republican-controlled legislature plans during its upcoming session to introduce a bill that would allow the state to pay for secretly armed teachers in classrooms so, the sponsor told TPM, potential shooters don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has said the idea will be part of his discussions about how to prevent a shooting like the one in Newtown from happening in the Volunteer State.

As has been seen following other mass shootings, there’s a strong segment of the gun rights lobby that says the answer to events like the one in Newtown is more guns in more places. But they’ve said the recent massacre shows how important it is to put guns into elementary schools, where even gun-friendly states like Tennessee don’t currently allow them.

State Sen. Frank Niceley (R) told TPM on Tuesday he believes it’s time for that to change. He plans to introduce legislation in the next session, which begins Jan. 8, that will require all schools to have an armed staff member of some kind. The current language of the bill — which is in its early form — would allow for either a so-called “resource officer” (essentially an armed police officer, the kind which most Tennessee high schools have already) or an armed member of the faculty or staff in every school in the state. The choice would allow schools that can’t afford a resource officer to fulfill the requirement without having to pay for anything beyond the cost of the training and, presumably, the weapon. But Niceley said schools should use the wiggle room to train and keep on hand armed staff not in uniform.

That’s the best way to protect students, he said.

“Say some madman comes in. The first person he would probably try to take out was the resource officer. But if he doesn’t know which teacher has training, then he wouldn’t know which one had [a gun],” Niceley said by phone. “These guys are obviously cowards anyway and if someone starts shooting back, they’re going to take cover, maybe go ahead and commit suicide like most of them have.”

Niceley described himself as a person who as grown up around guns his whole life and a strong supporter of gun owners’ rights. He tussled with the NRA during his last election over the letter grade he received from the group, though for the most part he’s been rated A+.

Niceley’s proposal has gathered some high-level interest. Tennessee’s governor told reporters Monday that he’s open to including it on the agenda for a January conference to discuss school safety. Nicely said he expect the governor “to be receptive” to his plan to use tax money to arm and train teachers.

Asked about concerns from gun control advocates that putting more guns in schools in the wake of Newtown might make them more dangerous, Niceley said the sentiment was naive. Not only does an unarmed school leave itself unprotected, he said, it also presents a tempting target.

“Look at it this way, you never see one of these whacko shooters go to a gun show and start shooting. They don’t go down to the police station and start shooting,” he said. “They go to places we advertise are gun-free.”

School resource officers are paid jointly by the local sheriff’s department and the school district. Niceley’s bill would allow schools to pay for background checks and firearms training for teachers that woud allow them to be armed as well. Asked if the guns for the trained teachers would also be part of the taxpayer expense, Niceley laughed.

“Well, that’s a minor detail in Tennessee,” he said. “We hoped the teachers would have them already.”

The teachers that would be trained would be volunteers, he said, and would likely carry their own firearms to school.

…

Paul

Why doesn’t Obama set an example and declare the White House a gun free zone and get rid of all those secret service agents that guard him and his family?
I am sure it will work out just as well as it does in schools!

Sir Vile

Obama, or any other person in congress or the senate, taking action against the 2nd amendment is an act of treason – where are the tough talking marines, army rangers, green beret, and navy seals to stand up and put down this teachery…oh they’re too busy spending their communist redistributed wealth pay checks, puffing up their chests, pinching their nipples going a-boo-boo at each other. YOU BOZO’S IN THE MILITARY ARE PAID TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM IT’S DOMESTIC ENEMIES – WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS? or are you just communists? or too cowardly?

karen

Should we be thinking about our country alone? Our country has been in wars for years and our culture is violent. Maybe it is time for peace. But when we are arming and supporting terrorist groups in Syria, why would we disarm ourselves?

Mark

The shooting at the Sandy Hook School was sad and tragic. From what I read, the guy had a defective brain and he also was into the occult. I think that is a deadly combination. Fatherless homes and those that allow their teens to become obsessed with violent video games also seems to play a role in creating these modern mass murderers. So does Islam, but it is not politically correct in the West to tell anyone the truth about the hateful violent brainwashing that Islam offers.
Like unusual, the liberals want to blame the guns instead of blaming evil and the dysfunctional system that they created to deal with evil. If guns were taken away from all law-abiding citizens in this country the crime rate would sky-rocket. Criminals would still get weapons and the police would still show up after the crime was already committed.
The liberals know they cannot repeal the second amendment so they will use other methods until they can get a liberal Supreme Court to just redefine what the words of the second amendment mean. Even so, you can be sure they will not let this mass slaughter go to waste. I do not rule out unconstitutional action against gun owners by the Obama administration.
The clear intent of allowing citizens to have guns was so that they would have the power to overthrow the government if it became lawless and tyrannical. However, the founders should have realized that a government that was already tyrannical would not abide by their Bill of Rights either. That is why I believe James Madison said that our system of government would only work if the nation had a moral and religious people.
The people who take the oath to uphold our Constitution should be the very ones to enforce it. Once the oath to uphold the Constitution means nothing to those that swear by God to uphold it, the nation the founders set up is already lost. Obviously then, those swearing the oath to God, but not meaning it, is a moral failing. That moral failing in a nut shell, is pretty much why we already have lost the nation that our founders set up.
How many times in the history of the world have we already seen government kill thousands and even millions of its own people because the government became tyrannical and had all the weapons? That is the real reason that there is a Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

PatriotJM

“After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, people all over the United States showed up at police departments to hand in their guns and according to recently taken polls, upwards of 50 percent of the population now believes that the idea of limiting gun rights is a positive thing.”

Where do you get your info??? I do not a SINGLE gun owner who would EVER hand in their gun to anyone, much less cops. That make no sense. The fact that you would cleverly insert this BS suggestive info makes me think that this is a disinfo article.

BTW, just search youtube for “sandy hook HOAX” and “aurora shooting HOAX.” Look at the the overwhelming proof that these s were hoaxes, designed for the next futile, and very lethal-to-anyone-who-tries-to-pull-it-off – gun grab.